All-Time Winning Percentage
.813
Other Schools Coached
Indiana State
Years Coaching College
29
National Championships
10

All-Time Winning Percentage
.746
Other Schools Coached
Lipscomb
Years Coaching College
3
National Championships
1 (NAIA)

All-Time Winning Percentage
.851
Other Schools Coached
NA
Years Coaching College
24
National Championships
6

Many people believe all of those individuals who stand on the sidelines at the basketball games (known as coaches), actually coach their teams. I believe something completely different. I believe the purest of coaches are those at the lower levels (i.e. elementary, middle school, high school, etc). All of these "coaches" must possess qualities and features the others do not. For example, a high school coach must make sure the discipline of the student athlete at their school coincides with what the school allows such as dress code, behavior in the classroom, and behavior on field trips/bus/etc. A college coach does not have to often worry about behavior in the classroom, but more so the behavior outside of the classroom due to most of their players becomming of the legal age to drink. College coaches must be aware that their student athletes may be participating in extra curricular activities such as partying and events outside of those encouraged by the athletic department and university. Not to say high school coaches do not have to worry about the parties, but they are more common in college than high school.
The NBA "coaches" must be aware of the money their players are making, the time committment players are putting in, and contract situations and/or holdouts. Although holdouts happen rarely in the NBA, they do happen on occasion. So many different logistics go along with coaching in the NBA such as free agency, trades, buyouts, incentives within a contract, etc. College and high school coaches do not have to worry about these issues because their players are with them hopefully for five seasons maximum depending on red shirts at the collegiate level.
My overall opinion is the individuals at the high school level are the purest of coaches. Granted, they are not always the best coaches, but they coach the fundamentals day-in-day-out. I believe at the collegiate level, if you are a great recruiter (i.e. Geno Auriemma, Jim Calhoun, Tom Izzo, Dean Smith, etc), you can be a mediocre coach and succeed with the talent you bring into your university. That is to not say these individuals are not great coaches by any stretch of the imagination, I just believe if your are an excellent recruiter, you can succeed in the college game.
The real debate is that title of a professional basketball coach. I believe coaching at the professional level is more about managing your talent, not coaching. Many argue that managing your talent is coaching, but I tend to believe that managing and coaching are completely different. Coaching is showing the players how to make a left handed layup or changing their technique on a jump shot. Managing is taking the talent you have been given and constructing gameplans on how to utilize that talent to the fullest.
Although many debates can arise from this belief, it is clear that the coaches whom win the most are great coaches, and/or recruiters, and/or managers of talent.

The argument about defense/tempo is strictly one in which a number of coaches find simple. Coaches at every level often stress man to man defense with few zone principles and others stress man to man defense with no zone principles. It all comes down to what type of coach you are and what type of style you enjoy. My personal belief is you must base your defensive strategy off of the personnel you have on your team.

High school coaches must be willing to make changes depending on the type of players they have coming up through their program. If one year they have 10 seniors who are amazing athletes, they can afford to run a full court or half court man to man defense. On the flip side, if they have 3 juniors and a JV team who have the footspeed of a snail, they must learn to adjust defensively into some type of zone with man principles. The downfall for high school coaches is that many are unwilling to change their ways due to the success of their teams and program in the past, which can result in punishing their current team because their skills do not mesh well with the system.

At the collegiate level, you can recruit to your defensive system if that is what you ultimately want to run. Many coaches will seek flat out offensive talent, which entails they are not as worried about the defensive end of the floor as the are on the attack offensively. Other coaches will look for flat out athletes. These coaches 99% of the time like to run a man defense because their athleticism often intensifies their defensive strategy. College coaches are often struggling their first few years taking over a new program due to the player's within the program not fitting their particular system they want to bring in. Unfortunately, many of the player's that do excel at the school are overlooked because the coach that is bringing in a new system does not utilize their talent for them to succeed to the extent they did before the coach arrived. A good coach would use a variety of ways to inplement their system with the system the player's have been a part of in the past. As each year goes by, they can put more of their system in.

The professional level is where it gets tricky. Coaches must often take their talent and figure out what player's on the team they mesh with, and what defenses they can play in where they are effective. General managers often try to find the best players rather than players that fit within a system. A great example would be the 2008-2009 Los Angeles Lakers. Phil Jackson runs the triangle offense. Therefore General Manager Mitch Kupchek traded for a versatile Power-Forward/Center in Pau Gasol the year before. Before Gasol and after Shaq left town, Kobe Bryant was running the show with little help other than Lamar Odom, which is one of the biggest reasons he was putting up single game totals of 81, 63, 50, and 40+ on a regular basis over a two year span. Kupchek brought in personnel that fit the offensive system Jackson runs.
An example of a general manager bringing in talent to a defensive system run by the coach would be that of the 2003-2004 Detroit Pistons. Under Head Coach Larry Brown, Joe Dumars knew that with 6 foot 9 inch Ben Wallace, another defensive post player in the paint was a must. They needed a larger body with more reach, so they traded for Rasheed Wallace before the trade deadline. The Pistons had stellar perimeter defensive player's, but they lacked that intensity inside; therefore bringing in Rasheed Wallace, it gave them versatility down low with Ben Wallace. This eventually won them a NBA Championship in 2004. Joe Dumars brought in talent that meshed well with Larry Browns defensive beliefs and system.

An example of a college coaches system being implemented
Coach Doe gets a job at John Doe University. Coach Doe's system is an up-tempo So in year one, it may be 85-90% of a slow paced-methodical gameplan. In the summer of Doe's first year, he gets 4 freshmen who are up-tempo style players who will play in their first year (no redshirt). In Doe's second year, although he still has 9 player's left over from the previous coaches recruiting, Doe can now implement a gameplan that is structured around up-tempo and pressing. The catch is, the coach must put players' into the game(s) who can take out the gameplan. His second year would still be slow paced-methodical due to a majority of his players' possessing a type of play different from his style. I would guess that 65-70% of his strategy in year two would be slower paced-methodical.
Year three and four are where the strategy of the entire program can be implemented by the coach. After recruiting to the system that he wants to run, it is clear that some of these player's will step in immediately and contribute. Unfortunately for the players' who were at the school before Doe arrived, they must learn to compete in his system which will require quicker footspeed and learning man principles. Some can adapt with their athletic ability, and others cannot. It all depends on what type of athlete and basketball player you are. By year four or five, Doe will be able to run his system since 85-90% of his player's are his recruits.

Looking from the outside in, I used to think that these coaches would step into a tournament or game and recruit the best player(s) possible in that game. Unfortunately, that is not how things work. College coaches must distinguish the talent level of the teams, conferences, tournaments, and levels they are surrounded by. Most coaches recruit the best players, but the most successful coaches recruit to a particular system they are running or want to run. The Division I coaches have the most flexibility due to their ableness to step out and recruit the best players. Often, the best players are good enough to be able to adapt to a coaches offensive and defensive strategies if they are not used to them already. There are times when the best player's can only play in a specific system. Most of the time these player's end up going to the "other" D1 schools such as teams from the MAC, WAC, Conference USA, etc.

The coaches who experience difficulty are the D2 and D3 coaches.
They must distinguish the following
(in no particular order)
Is the athlete we are watching good enough to play at the D1/D2 level?
Would the distance from their home play a role in their decision making?
Do they have a supporting family of them attending our school?
How hard do we want to pursue this player?
What type of evaluations can we receive from their coaches/athletic directors/trainers?
What skills must they improve to be a contributor for our program?
Does this athlete and/or their family believe they are "too good" to play at the D2/D3 level? (More common than you think)
Does this athlete have the grades to get accepted into our school?
Does this player fit our system/gameplan?
Who are the individuals whom assist in the decision making of this player?
Can this player's family meet the financial requirements of our school?
Does this player qualify for academic/athletic scholarships? (only academic for D3)
Does this player have a particular major in mind that our school can offer?

These are just a few topics that coaches at the D2/D3/NAIA must think about. The D1 coaches have clearly earned their spots, while the D2-D3-NAIA coaches are for the most part trying to make it to the D1 level (most of the time). It all comes down to how good you are at evaluating talent and molding a player into your system. Our hope as coaches is that the player has a solid game fundamentally and is versatile.